Showing posts with label Sponsorship. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sponsorship. Show all posts

Monday, February 8, 2010

The Ten Commandments of Super Bowl Advertising (and 2010 violations)



So, here we lay in the wake of Super Bowl XLIV; New Orleans Saints fans are inevitably just waking up (around 6pm on the East Coast) in the gutters of Bourbon Street and my apartment now reeks of wounded chicken wings and skunked light beer:



I have to apologize for not previewing the Super Bowl ads this year, I haven’t been able to get around to writing anything worthwhile since going back to school, and maybe some of that has to do with having learned nothing about advertising this semester. It has more to do with the fact that I’m probably lazy (ergo the filthy apartment).

This entry will act as a guideline for judging this year’s ads, which on the whole I felt were very sub-par. Even as a lowly undergraduate studying advertising, I know there are several cardinal rules one shouldn’t violate when producing a TV spot, rules that should be held in especially high regard when the spots cost almost $100,000 per second.

I have taken this opportunity to put together what I believe should, from here on out, be the Ten Commandments of Super Bowl Advertising. I will list each of my Commandments, followed by the spot and advertiser that either heeded or violated it in 2010.

I. Thou shalt not save the big reveal for the end



Aside from reaching the “aw, that’s cute” segment of the population (which may be a lot, estimates say up to 60 million people who watch the Super Bowl don’t care about the football part), this spot was rather baffling. Almost 45 seconds of random toys prancing around, and the Kia Sorrento name is not used until the 54 second mark of the ad. By this time, Kia has wasted more than $5,000,000 with nonsense, only to have probably lost you by now. The “big reveal,” as a professor of mine calls it, needs to come early and often so that people know what they’re watching and why it’s important in context, otherwise you might show them an unrelated sponsored short film for a minute.

II. Thou shalt not pursue comedy at the expense of your commercial message




Brett Favre humor is great with NFL fans, you know, the other portion of people that watch the NFL’s championship game. Anyone that has watched SportsCenter (or FavreWatch, as I called it) each of the last two summers probably found this spot charming. The problem is that it probably created so much laughter and/or discussion after the first twenty seconds, that everyone missed the correlation with the 10-year warranty and the soothing Hyundai narrator voice. This also violates the 1st Commandment, albeit less severely because it may have actually amused people enough to have them watch it again later.

III. Thou shalt not rehash the same idea from Super Bowl ads of the past



Budweiser Clydesdales get a pass here because they have become a fixture of the Super Bowl, and without simple branding advertising this industry would suck. Teleflora used the exact same concept last year, but the flowers were noticeably less sassy this time around, so not only was the idea recycled, it was actually less funny:



Cars.com also used the same punchline, different story formula: boy-genius knows all and fears nothing, except buying cars. It was cute last year, it smelled stale this year (much like my kitchen, hardy har!).



Godaddy’s sleaze is getting really old, and it’s a shame that Danica Patrick still sinks to this level to endorse the web hosting/domain name giant year after year. They used to create buzz with their “banned” ads before the big game, but now everyone knows that it isn’t even worth it to log onto the site to see the “unrated” web content. Did you really think you’d see NASCAR’s next big thing nude? You have a better chance of seeing Dale Earnhardt pose for a centerfold…Too soon?

IV. Thou shalt not use a divisive figure for a divisive message



I’m going to set aside all of my disdain for Tim Tebow as an athlete and my distaste for pro-life messages when I say this: this ad was done as well and tastefully as possible. Yes, it did get booed at my Super Bowl party. But upon further review, this could have been way worse with all the hype it was getting as some extreme anti-abortion spot that would make liberals shut off their televisions in anger.

That all being said, it still was not a good idea for the NGO to run this during the Super Bowl, because you have the most general pool of an audience included in your 106 million impressions, and many of them will react as my friends did and end up missing your call to action, no matter how gently you put your message. This spot could open the floodgates for political or other particularly divisive advertising, which is typically much, much worse to look at.

V. Thou shalt not waste a celebrity endorsement/appearance



Production costs for Super Bowl ads are often overlooked when people talk about the price tag. It costs a lot of money to produce special effects and CGI and to pay celebrity endorsers to spread your message. I hope this spot is part of a larger campaign for Flo TV where they will feature will.i.am for more than 1 second, and also where they will use less of the Who. I’ve had my fill of My Generation and of Pete Townshend windmills for years to come.

VI. Thou shall use cute children with adult personalities





eTrade does not get in trouble for reusing the same idea because generally they are all still funny. They made the mistake, I thought, of saving the funniest for the post game show, but I assume most gluttonous Americans weren’t willing to rouse themselves and change the channel when the clock hit 0:00, so they probably got a good chunk of the full ratings points anyway. The kid in the Doritos spot was excellent, and this ad to me stood out amidst a sea of Doritos endorsement.

VII. Thou shalt not remind people how much money you spent on the Super Bowl



Stoners everywhere rejoiced at the success of their stereotypical favorite brand, or at least one must assume the Frito-Lay brand is doing well, given the fact that they probably spent close to $10,000,000 (yes, ten million dollars) on Super Bowl ads and sponsorship combined. They ran four 30-second spots and had their name elsewhere during the game. The casual buzz stopped being about how funny the ads were (mildly funny, in my opinion) to how much freakin’ money they spent on all the spots. Recession be damned!

VIII. Thou shalt not depict unattractive people in their underpants






This would not have made the list if not for multiple infractions this particular year. Since when did showing Joey and Janie Baggadonuts in their respective underpants become funny? Also, who still wears tighty-whiteys? The sumo diapers are not much better. At least the Dockers ad had a good jingle…

IX. Thou shalt not use a catchy jingle that doesn’t rhyme



There was a lot of buildup for this spot, in which Sir Charles Barkley channels his inner Shakespeare to explain the NBA $5 Box from Taco Bell in verse. The humorous value of the commercial lies in the awful poem, but it is clear that Chuck has fought to maintain his alias as “The Round Mound of Rebound,” and it hasn’t been by eating off the Fresco Menu.



X. By all means, thou shalt do something completely ridiculous



No comment.

Tuesday, December 29, 2009

Shawn Johnson is so cute...the way she flips over A MOVING BOBSLED

Or so a recent viral attempt from Nestle would have you believe:



OK, OK, so there's no way it's real. Not to say the 17-year old Olympic champion (Gold Medal in the '08 Woman's Balance Beam and Silver in the Woman's All Around) couldn't do what this video apparently shows, but obviously no one would let her risk her career to promote Crunch bars. Except apparently American speed-skating champion Apolo Anton Ohno, who is the male in the video that dares her to do it.

The video is meant to promote the Crunch Challenge, which from my limited research appears to be a facebook application/game meant to get people excited about the Olympics and their natural counterpart, Nestle Crunch bars.


Sure, I'll sign up for it, of course on team Crispies, because:

  • Shawn Johnson is the captain of that team. She's cute and I was rooting for her to beat Nastia Liukin all of Summer '08
  • I didn't see Apollo hold up his end and skate down the bobsled course
  • The Summer Olympics are approximately 50 times more exciting than their Winter counterpart
The idea of a celebrity jumping over something ridiculous to promote a product isn't new, and I'm not even thinking back to the days of MJ. Less than two years ago, Kobe Bryant supposedly used his Nike Hyperdunks to jump over a speeding Aston Martin:



The Black Mamba has also used the shoes to leap past a pool of snakes, rape allegations, and the entire Toronto Raptors team.

Real or embellished, I think the somewhat ambiguous viral video can certainly help your cause, especially when you're using generally well-liked celebrities. They generate a lot of free buzz, and you have to imagine the people are happy to do it, especially people like Apolo Anton Ohno, who was just beside himself because the people at Nestle actually knew who he was.

By the way, a nice after-Christmas gift idea for me, if anyone is looking:


The Shawn Johnson Wall Cling. For some reason, Rachel didn't get this for me.

Loading image

Click anywhere to cancel

Image unavailable

Loading image

Click anywhere to cancel

Image unavailable

Loading image

Click anywhere to cancel

Image unavailable

Thursday, September 17, 2009

Why stay on strategy when you can have a celebrity spokesperson?

A fairly recent ad for Gillette body wash annoys me in a few ways, and I'll have to ask forgiveness from the consumer product advertising gods if I offend the mighty Procter & Gamble here.



In the first 13 seconds of this :30 spot, this appears like it could be an ad for Tiger Woods brand clothes, Nike, Gatorade, Tiger Woods PGA Tour 10, the PGA Tour, or any of the countless brands the sponsorship magnet represents. It is actually for Gillette.

I am a big fan of humor in ads, especially in television. I am not, however, a supporter of the failure to quickly introduce the brand, or the ever so popular meaningless endorsement. This commercial does have some decent jokes ("He can see us"), but neither the humor nor the celebrity endorsement do anything for me in making me want to buy this stuff. The only fact about the product (3x the moisturizing something-or-other) that makes it mean anything is almost hidden away at the :23 mark of the commercial.

Tiger signed with Gillette shortly after it was acquired by P&G a few years ago in a deal suspected to be worth anywhere from 10 to 20 million dollars over 5 years. P&G is now using that windfall to finance the watering down of the Gillette brand. A book I recently read, The Origin of Brands by Al Ries, would point out that Gillette entering the body wash market is a signal of convergence, a surefire way to commit brand suicide and finance your own funeral. They are essentially paying up to $20 million to confuse people as to what Gillette is.

Unfortunately, the other problem with this ad is that people love it. Yes it's funny, and yes Tiger Woods is the man, and yes daddy can show his kids the funny commercial he made at work, but nobody is going to rush out and buy Gillette body wash because of it.


Recent comments on this video on YouTube include:

"Omg I am laughing so hard!"
"hahaha I love the way he says check "
"tiger rules"

The funny thing about advertising is that you can get all the pats on the back, handshakes and giggles in the world when the ad runs, but nobody's giving you that raise until the sales figures come in. Tiger Woods is not marching into the BBDO office to hand YOU a giant check.

Perhaps the men behind this one could have started with a campaign and message along the lines of: "We are Gillette, we have body wash now. It cleans better than other body washes." It would beat the current copy: "Prepare your skin, with Gillette's new line of hydrating body wash." Ads like this one make me think that there are copywriters and creative directors out there who, while entertaining, need to get the Lennie Small treatment in this industry.

Yes, that was an Of Mice and Men reference. Deal with it.

Tuesday, June 2, 2009

RIP: Kobe and Lebron Puppets

RIP 5.30.09

Lebron James' dreams of a 2009 NBA title with the Cavaliers weren't the only casualty following Cleveland's loss to the Orlando Magic in the Eastern Conference Finals. Also destroyed was the potential for some Nike on Nike play between the two best players in the world, and consequently, an epic advertising opportunity for the country's biggest shoe brand.

Of course, the company had been showing the Kobe/Lebron puppet commercials, which portray the pair of superstars as Sesame Street esque puppets talking smack to one another, in order to hype up the inevitable match up in the NBA finals:



Uuuuunfortunately for Nike and for funny commercial loving folk everywhere, the campaign must now die a quiet, painful death as King James will not be participating in the Finals. In his stead will be Dwight "Superman" Howard and his Orlando Magic. As great a character as Howard is...



...you won't be seeing him in stuffed, stringed effigy form. Howard is a spokesman for rival adidas. This poses an unbelievable opportunity for the Germans to strike back. Their arch nemesis just had a campaign blow up in their face, and they now have their Super spokesman battling with Kobe and the Lakers. If they can throw something together in time, it'd be an awesome shot at Nike. They have until Thursday, Game 1 of the Finals, to get something on TV, assuming they were forward thinking enough to have purchased some spots.

If not, a giant puppet of Superman in downtown Orlando (or Cleveland, if they were ballsy) would suffice.

As for Nike and the rest of the sports and advertising worlds, we continue to wait for a modern version of Magic/Bird. I'm sure ESPN will do just fine in the mean time.

Loading image

Click anywhere to cancel

Image unavailable

Tuesday, February 24, 2009

Bills new logo? Not so fast.

There were mumblings of rumors that the Buffalo Bills would be getting a new logo to commemorate their 50th season in 2009.  Really, they're getting a new patch on their old uniforms, which is a conglomeration of the throwback and current logos, the Tops Friendly Markets logo, and other commemorative nonsense:

Graphically, it's a C. Some things that bother me:
Where did the tan trim come from?
Why the varying font sizes in the dates and the numbers "5" and "0"?
Why does the red stripe with the dates not align with the logo's red stripe?

Promotionally, though, it's an A+ for Tops.  Tops is a supermarket chain in WNY that as of recently is the K-mart to the Wal Mart of Wegmans.  Anything they can do to hang on at this point is a plus, but a cross promotion with the Bills is huge.

Says Tops prez Frank Curci: Our partnership with the Bills is very important

No, really?

But wait, this isn't a two-dog show!  Labatt Blue and Perry's Ice Cream are in on it too.  Displays for Labatt, the Pilsner of choice of Western New York, will have stations for fans to vote on the all-time Bills team, and Perry's will be introducing a "specially packaged Perry’s Ice Cream that honors the team’s history". I personally can't wait for Orange J. Simpson sorbet...

The assortment of important local companies is cute, but I'm not sure as to the benefit for the team itself.  People that shop at Tops and drink Blue are already season ticket holders (check the parking lot at 8:00 AM on gamedays).  With the overstatement of the century, here's Pete Guelli, Bills senior VP of business ventures:

"We were looking for a local company that could help us create awareness for this milestone and Tops simply touches more people than any company in Buffalo"

I couldn't tell you the number of times I have been touched by Tops.  Actually, I can.  Zero.  Coincidentally, that's also the amount of times I hope to ever be touched by this guy:

Friday, February 6, 2009

Miss this, and it's G-E-I-C-O

Spelling animal names is sooo 2008. Or at least since somebody's boss stole their brilliant idea to to buy the name of the game (traditionally H-O-R-S-E) played during NBA All-Star Weekend. The players will shoot to avoid elimination, which is now spelled G-E-I-C-O.

From USA Today:

Sports are often made for TV. And TV is made for advertisers.

So it shouldn't surprise — especially as all sports are scrambling to find new places to hang "for sale" signs given the current economy — that the NBA's first H-O-R-S-E contest won't use those letters.

As that contest joins dunking and three-point shooting contests as part of TNT's NBA All-Star Weekend coverage, the as-yet unnamed three contestants — who'll be overseen by an NBA ref — will play G-E-I-C-O. As in the insurance company that will be the event's unavoidable sponsor. (Suggestion: The winner then takes on the famous ad lizard to really drive home the brand awareness.)


Yeah, they found a way to take the advertising dog-and-pony show that is the NBA and put a brand name on something else. Brilliant.

Quite frankly, I do follow the NBA and I didn't know there was a HORSE competition (for kids who didn't grow up with a basketball hoop in the driveway, one player makes a shot, usually ridiculously hard, and everyone has to replicate it or else get a letter. Spell the name of the game, and you lose). But hey, the stars will be out in Phoenix to see it, and Geico's obviously getting free PR from bloggers (like the Sporting News, where I heard about this).

Just please, please, please, keep the googly eye money out of it.

Saturday, January 17, 2009

Lebrowns?



This new spot for State Farm is supposed to air tomorrow during the NFL's conference championship games. Reasons it may cause an uproar:

1) Lebron James is a vocal fan of the Dallas Cowboys, and is notorious for not supporting Cleveland sports teams that he isn't on.

2) Am I to believe he is a safety? Wearing number 23, he's got to be either a RB or a DB, but I don't know which of those has many 6'8" 250 pounders.

3) Signing James very well might make the Browns better. It would certainly make them more interesting.

Saturday, December 27, 2008

Best ad on TV 12/27/75

In a world where sports were dominated by male figures, and advertising had begun to turn to athlete spokespeople, how would Beautymist be able to market their panty hose?




I couldn't care less if my legs are struggling. I wanna kiss you.